• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren: 'Too Big To Fail' Is Worse Than Before Financial Crisis

:lamo:lamo
Oh god no no no no no.
Im guessing you havent seen my posts on taxes, foreign policy, social cuts... I mean hell have you even asked me what kind of healthcare system im in favor of. Ill tell you its not what the ACA brings us.

They've never done anything wrong, in your world.
 
Yea they have total control...
I think you might of forgot about one chamber of congress...
n6vrs2.png

Nope, prior to 2010 they ran the show 100%.
 
Yes, let's use Great Depression legislation from 80 years ago to fix this. Let's not do something logical like "just stop bailing them out" and "banish phrases like 'too big to fail'".
 
Yes, let's use Great Depression legislation from 80 years ago to fix this. Let's not do something logical like "just stop bailing them out" and "banish phrases like 'too big to fail'".

Not sure if you're joking or not, but have you considered that the repeal of Great Depression legislation is what started our more recent problems?
 
Yes, let's use Great Depression legislation from 80 years ago to fix this. Let's not do something logical like "just stop bailing them out" and "banish phrases like 'too big to fail'".

When was the last time the Federal government earned billions of dollars on an investment. That is what they made on the big bank "bailout".
 
Not sure if you're joking or not, but have you considered that the repeal of Great Depression legislation is what started our more recent problems?

Our problems existed because the large financial institutions made risky investments with the full knowledge that Washington would pull their collective asses out of the fire if and when it fizzled. If you took the safety net away, we wouldn't have been subjected to derivatives, credit default swaps, and other ridiculous tools that basically existed to create no-loss scenarios for the large banks.

It's the corporate version of the moral hazard.
 
Read more @: Elizabeth Warren: 'Too Big To Fail' Is Worse Than Before Financial Crisis

This is an outrage. We went the total wrong direction on this. Instead of ending this too big to fail ****, its gotten worse! We need to bring back Glass Stegal. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Which once again points to the real failure of the Obama administration to act when they had big majorities in both houses of Congress and could have accomplished something in those first two years.
 
Which once again points to the real failure of the Obama administration to act when they had big majorities in both houses of Congress and could have accomplished something in those first two years.

That for me is the defining moment in Obama's presidency where he truly blew it.
 
That for me is the defining moment in Obama's presidency where he truly blew it.


More than "blew it," but revealed his true self and where his real loyalties lie.
 
When was the last time the Federal government earned billions of dollars on an investment. That is what they made on the big bank "bailout".

:lamo

When the government makes BIG money is each time the government declares exclusive ownership - of land and mineral rights to it, radio frequencies, areas of oceans, rivers and lakes, and anything by regulations they claim they own/totally control.

With the ACA, the government has claimed it owns us and we have to pay annually for merely existing.
 
We should have punished the companies that damaged the economy instead of giving them more gifts and more power. The people who ran them should be in jail. The pilfered money should have been returned to the people it was stolen from. The companies should have been either dissolved or turned over from their corrupt owners down the chain within the company, or liquidated and distributed among the employees.

Hurting the country, especially on such a large scale, for one's own gain... that should be punished. Severely.


Their position is the government forced them to do all this crap by requiring them to write bad loans - and then when it collapsed as they warned the government is clamoring they should be punished for what the government itself did. "Bailout" could be called damage-settlement in some regards.

However, I don't see anyone calling for politicians who did this to be jailed.
 
That for me is the defining moment in Obama's presidency where he truly blew it.

Exactly. Cripes, if what happened in 2008 wasn't enough reason to change things back, then we're all ****ed that it's been pretty much status quo. This is why I love Warren... she is making it her mission to go after those who skirted the law and is calling on Obama to make the needed changes to the banking system.
 
That for me is the defining moment in Obama's presidency where he truly blew it.

I agree and I worked for a few months in the summer and fall of 2008 to get Obama elected. So I had faith and was a supporter.

I had read that Obama was a great fan of FDR and was studying the Hundred Days in which FDR put forth a myriad of legislation which changed America. I had hoped that Obama would do much the same thing.
I read how he made Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff and I was very overjoyed thinking that he is damn serious and Emanuel was going to signal that the White House was taking no crap from anybody and would put the pedal to the metal. Sadly that never happened and everything was wasted on a long drawn out battle over a corporate health care scheme in which Obama started with a conservative corporate position and continually compromised with only himself.

Its really sad.
 
Our problems existed because the large financial institutions made risky investments with the full knowledge that Washington would pull their collective asses out of the fire if and when it fizzled. If you took the safety net away, we wouldn't have been subjected to derivatives, credit default swaps, and other ridiculous tools that basically existed to create no-loss scenarios for the large banks.

It's the corporate version of the moral hazard.

Yes, I understand that. And the reason large financial institutions could do that was because the law that had prohibited such behavior for 60+ years, Glass-Steagall, had been repealed. GS was passed to prevent such behavior, because that behavior is what led to the Great Depression.

It's kinda like wearing a helmet when engaged in risky behavior. When the helmet is removed, bad things can and will happen.
 
Yes, I understand that. And the reason large financial institutions could do that was because the law that had prohibited such behavior for 60+ years, Glass-Steagall, had been repealed. GS was passed to prevent such behavior, because that behavior is what led to the Great Depression.

It's kinda like wearing a helmet when engaged in risky behavior. When the helmet is removed, bad things can and will happen.

Well, my take is that I'm not against the banks doing that. I'm against the banks doing it, losing all their money, and coming back to daddy (Washington) and saying "dad I'm broke, can I have more money?".

They used money market tools that could make money - could. They should be allowed to use them. They just should be able to regret it too. I prefer that over legislation just simply preventing them from doing it. If the banks continue to be that stupid, then maybe they should fail. Businesses fail all the time. It's a good lesson.
 
Well, my take is that I'm not against the banks doing that. I'm against the banks doing it, losing all their money, and coming back to daddy (Washington) and saying "dad I'm broke, can I have more money?".

They used money market tools that could make money - could. They should be allowed to use them. They just should be able to regret it too. I prefer that over legislation just simply preventing them from doing it. If the banks continue to be that stupid, then maybe they should fail. Businesses fail all the time. It's a good lesson.

I am neither a banker nor an economist, but my understanding of what GS did was to separate investment banking from community banking. An investment bank COULD NOT under GS be involved in community banking, with mortgages and such.

When the statute was repealed that distinction went away, and it because like a big crap-shoot. Community banks were owned or controlled by the investment banks, and so people's money and equity were thrown into the gambling ring.

Restoration of GS would simply separate the banks.
 
Read more @: Elizabeth Warren: 'Too Big To Fail' Is Worse Than Before Financial Crisis

This is an outrage. We went the total wrong direction on this. Instead of ending this too big to fail ****, its gotten worse! We need to bring back Glass Stegal. [/FONT][/COLOR]

And sub-prime mortgages are still out there. Interest only loans are still out there. Did the "financial reform", aka, Dodds-Franks, actually do anything? No? Could that be because despite all the press and the hoopla, the dems didn't actually know jack about what caused and contributed to the failure?
 
…An investment bank COULD NOT under GS be involved in community banking, with mortgages and such.

Restoration of GS would simply separate the banks.

I once thought this until I came across this:
Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, requests for approval to engage in a greater universe of securities activities were largely granted by the OCC and the FRB, and, in most cases, have been approved by courts. By the time that the GLBA was enacted in 1999, the FRB had authorized certain BHCs and their subsidiaries to underwrite and deal in an array of bank-ineligible securities, including municipal bonds, commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities and other consumer-related securities, corporate debt securities, and corporate equity securities. In addition to underwriting and dealing activities, the FRB also approved other securities activities such as the provision of investment advice,22 the brokering of securities,23 and others. The FRB promulgated the list of permissible nonbanking activities at 12 C.F.R. § 225.28(b).
pg 4
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41298.pdf

It would seem that comingling banking/investments had been enabled long before GS was repealed. Further considering the Federal Reserve’s ability to ‘redefine’ banks abilities I question that the restoration of GS would solve anything…?
 
And sub-prime mortgages are still out there. Interest only loans are still out there. Did the "financial reform", aka, Dodds-Franks, actually do anything? No? Could that be because despite all the press and the hoopla, the dems didn't actually know jack about what caused and contributed to the failure?

It appears to me that the US Gov't takes the lead in those interest only loans since we never pay back the principal on our debt. Do you think the gov't sets a bad example?
 
I once thought this until I came across this:

pg 4
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41298.pdf

It would seem that comingling banking/investments had been enabled long before GS was repealed. Further considering the Federal Reserve’s ability to ‘redefine’ banks abilities I question that the restoration of GS would solve anything…?

A friend and I were discussing this just yesterday.

Perhaps the events you mention above are what led to the RTC and the great savings & loan debacle of the 80's?

The S&L crisis, Frank Keating and one of the Bushes, preceded the repeal of GS in time, and may have helped set the stage for the repeal of GS?
 
Perhaps the events you mention above are what led to the RTC and the great savings & loan debacle of the 80's?

I don't remember the S&L being engaged in derivatives. IIRC their main issue was making subprime mortgage loans to take advantage of the high interest rates being charged.

The S&L crisis, Frank Keating and one of the Bushes, preceded the repeal of GS in time, and may have helped set the stage for the repeal of GS?

Maybe...?
 
Nope, prior to 2010 they ran the show 100%.

Actually, if you want to be more accurate, you'd say "prior to early 2011 they ran the show."

Even more time to do stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom